Itxa/2425/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd
High Court
04 Mar 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itxa/2425/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
04 Mar 2013
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itxa/2425/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -6 v. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2425 OF 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
M/s. Kohinoor Projects Pvt. Ltd.
..Respondent.
Mr. Suresh Kumar i/b. Padma Divakar for the appellant.None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013
P.C. :-
1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2006-07, following question of law has been raised for our consideration:-
“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in setting aside the order of CIT(A) and restoring the issue of disallowance u/s.14A, back to the file of the A.O. for passing a fresh order after allowing the opportunity of
being heard to the assessee and after necessary examination, in the light of the judgment judisdiction High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (328 ITR 81) which is not accepted by the revenue and SLP has been filed ?”
2.Since the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT & Anr. reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.